Skip to main content

Lequita Nix Hilliard v. Dolgencorp, LLC

Tenn. Ct. App.March 26, 2019No. E2018-00312-COA-R3-CV
Mixed ResultDolgencorp, LLC
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge D. Michael Swiney
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Excerpt

Lequita Nix Hilliard ("Plaintiff") sued Dolgencorp, LLC ("Defendant") alleging discrimination in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103, of the Tennessee Disability Act, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-311, of the Tennessee Human Rights Act and retaliatory discharge for filing a worker's compensation claim. The Chancery Court for Polk County ("the Trial Court") granted summary judgment to Defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We find and hold that there is no genuine disputed issue of material fact with regard to the fact that due to her medical restrictions Plaintiff is unable to perform the essential job functions of a store manager. Given this, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on both of Plaintiff's claims. We, therefore, affirm.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** Lequita Nix Hilliard worked for Dolgencorp, LLC (the company that operates Dollar General stores). She sued her employer claiming they discriminated against her because of a disability and fired her in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Hilliard argued that the company violated Tennessee laws that protect workers from disability discrimination and retaliation. **What the court decided:** The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss Hilliard's case entirely. The court ruled there was no genuine dispute about the material facts, meaning Hilliard couldn't prove her claims even if all her allegations were true. The court found insufficient evidence to support either her disability discrimination claim or her retaliation claim. **Why this matters for workers:** This case shows how challenging it can be to win discrimination and retaliation lawsuits. Workers need strong evidence to prove their employer's actions were motivated by discrimination or retaliation, not legitimate business reasons. Simply filing a workers' compensation claim and then being terminated isn't enough by itself to prove retaliation. Workers facing similar situations should document incidents carefully and consider consulting with employment attorneys early to understand what evidence they need to build a strong case.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.